With the introduction, in 2010, of the Mark II EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM, Canon created a problem – if you have the Mk I version of the lens, is it worth upgrading? Equally, if you are looking to buy should you pick up a cheaper Mk I or the more expensive Mk II? And finally, is f/2.8 really worth it when there is also the EF300mm f/4L IS USM lens available substantially cheaper? Putting them side-by-side on an EOS 5D Mark II, it is easy to see where the sensible money should be spent.

Looking first at the overall score, it seems that price is an indicator of performance – the Mk II version scores 28.5 to the MkI’s 24.8 and the 300mm f/4L’s 17.2 – all three of which are very good scores. Equally, if we look at the P-Mpix scores, the EOS 5D Mark II has a nominal score of 21 P-Mpix. Using the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, the score is 20.5P-Mpix so barely any reduction in quality, with the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM it’s 17.2P-Mpix and with the EF300mm f/4L IS USM, it drops to 12.8 P-Mpix. Clearly, in terms of resolution, the two f/2.8 lenses win out.

Looking at the field map, both f/2.8 lenses show exceptionally good resolution across the frame, with the Mk II version just beating it’s older sibling. With the aperture set to f/4, the EF300mm f/4L IS USM puts in a good performance, but it can’t match the two more expensive models. However, once the aperture is stopped down to f/5.6, the differences between the three lenses are less apparent. The EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM is still the best, showing the best edge-to-edge resolution, however between the MkI lens and the f/4L version, there is little difference. Once the aperture closes down to f/11, the differences have all but gone, with all three lenses putting in equally good scores.

It’s almost exactly the same story with the vignetting scores. The EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM is the best of the trio, showing the least vignetting at both f/2.8 and f/4. Once again though, from f/5.6 all the way through to f/32, all three lenses show no vignetting at all.

As with the Mark I EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM, both the Mark II and the EF300mm f/4L IS USM show no chromatic aberration or distortion either.

In reality, both f/2.8 lenses are exceptional performers and the f/4 model is not that far behind given the price differential.

Attached to the APS-C sensored EOS 7D, the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM once again puts in a strong performance, scoring a DxOMark score of 17, relative to the EOS 7D’s resolution of 18megapixels. Equally, the Pentax lens scores very well, managing 15 compared to the 16.3megapixels available on the K-5. Overall, this shows the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM is as good as it’s made out to be, but in this comparison, the Pentax on a K-5 is not that far behind.

Further readings for the Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM review – Straight from the top drawer

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Comments

incorrections

There are several incorrections in the review. For example sharpness (P-Mpix) score is confused with overall DXomark Score.

For example:Attached to the APS-C sensored EOS 7D, the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM once again puts in a strong performance, scoring 16.7P-Mpix, relative to the EOS 7D’s resolution of 18megapixels. Equally, the Pentax lens scores very well, managing 15.0P-Mpix compared to the 16.3megapixels available on the K-5. Overall, this shows the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM is as good as it’s made out to be, but in this comparison, the Pentax on a K-5 is not that far behind.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Furthermore in the [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/With-new-STM-technology-does-Canon-s-updated-18-135mm-still-deliver/Comparisons]review[/url] of Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-f5.6 IS STM lens

In comparison section:

Quote:

Tested on the flagship APS-C DSLRs from Canon and Nikon, the 7D and D7000, these two Super Zooms achieve remarkably similar results. Overall we can say they’re the same optically although the Nikon version hits a DxOMark Score of 13 just nudging out the Canon with 12.

The screenshot shows us not D7000 but D300 with the score 10 not 13 as mentioned.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

There is no line for EOS M but it is mentioned in legend in Samsung NX200 [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Samsung-NX200-A-hybrid-with-purpose/Comparisons]review[/url].[img]http://cdn.dxomark.com/itext/review/camera/samsung-nx200/03.jpg[/img]

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Quote:

When it comes to the camera technology, HTC has been even bolder and in the midst of camera phone megapixel race, with 12 or 13-megapixels becoming the norm for new flagship Smartphones, the HTC One utilizes a 1/3” sensor with just a 4-megpixel 2688x1520 pixel resolution.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4GED review:

First of all thank you for review.

1).Add space between F/4G and ED in title of review.

2).In paragraph:

Quote:

As one would hope for a lens costing a cool $7,000, the AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II performs well, achieving an overall DxOMark Score of 25. Sharpness isn’t up to the fixed focal length equivalents (which vary from 28-25P-Mpix over the same range) but it has very good sharpness across the frame at full aperture throughout the zoom range, though peak performance is at 250mm f/4.

28-25 is actually a DxOMark score, but not sharpness score (which is 17P-Mpix).

Re: incorrections

Hello!

Thanks for your interest in DxOMark. Here are some explanations on the following sentence:

« Sharpness isn’t up to the fixed focal length equivalents (which vary from 28-25P-Mpix over the same range) but it has very good sharpness across the frame at full aperture throughout the zoom range, though peak performance is at 250mm f/4”

What we mean is that the 200mm f/2 prime has a sharpness score of 28 P-Mpix and the 400mm f/2,8 prime has 25 (on a D800), to be compared with the 17 P-Mpix of the 200-400mm f/4. Our apologies if it’s no clear on our review.